Amidst a technologically advanced society, the quest for increasing automation with effective integration continues. From coffee makers with an automatic start to military control centers with automatic notification of enemy vessels, automation often necessitates the inclusion of some problem recognition features. For example, some coffee makers include an automatic shut off that recognizes leaving the coffee maker on too long can also create a problem. Without problem recognition, automated systems could continue in a regular operation mode, which often exacerbates the problem. Consequently, there has been development in the area of recognizing situations that require action on the part of the automated systems.
Numerous systems include a rule-based problem recognition system designed to issue some sort of notification when a particular situation is recognized. When systems receive information from several sources, these systems may recognize that a problem exists as received information conflicts with one of the preset rules. Rule based conflict recognition has been used in many areas including military tactics. Militaries employ countless technologies to gather and disseminate battlefield information. Generally, the goal is eliminating uncertainty and conflict recognition using awareness of circumstances, or situational awareness.
Situational Awareness refers to an explicit knowledge of the current state of the physical world surrounding the actor. Intention Awareness connotes a more implicit knowledge of the mental world—knowledge of the actor's states of mind and its understanding of others' intentions. Situational Awareness involves the present moments while Intention Awareness indicates the most probable future states by focusing on the understanding of motivations of the actors involved. Intention Awareness informs and enhances Situational Awareness, providing a more comprehensive understanding of an existing situation. Consequently, situation recognition systems that consider only Situational Awareness are devoid of information that could critically impact the future.
Military domain, while by far not the only area where these systems are used, provides a lot of examples that demonstrate their applications. To date, Situational Awareness has advanced primarily by providing a soldier with a near real-time view of current battlefield conditions. Some current focus on advancing and sharing Situational Awareness by enabling the soldier to receive, compare, and communicate battle state information faster and more accurately. Through the use of embedded computing and communications systems, these Situational Awareness systems enable the coordination of units and weapon systems to participate in a battle with better reliability, lethality, survivability, and tempo of attack.
While Situational Awareness does aid in situation recognition, knowledge of physical circumstances rarely provides a complete view of a situation. Possessing Situation Awareness alone can considerably impact the most common tasks, such as navigating a busy parking lot. With a brief glance around, a driver becomes immediately aware of the locations of the other cars and people moving around the lot. Knowledge of these objects and their relative positions provide Situational Awareness. Because the situation may change, the driver should be aware of the intentions of the other drivers and pedestrians. For example, a pedestrian who has been waiting for the car to pass is likely to walk behind the driver's car. If the driver remains unaware of the pedestrian's intention, the driver could seriously injure the pedestrian if driver decides to stop and reverse.
Consequently, systems that utilize only Situational Awareness can remain susceptible to potentially dangerous situations. For example, military tactics that use Situational Awareness currently provide a great deal of assistance both in coordinating the flow of orders and information and also in visualizing the current state of battle. However, fratricide studies show that even powerful tools like these still prove insufficient when forced to operate in such a chaotic, interdependent, and fast-paced environment as the 21st century battlefield. Fratricide as used herein means unintentionally firing upon and killing friendly, or non-enemy, troops. Hence, each case of fratricide is a mistake, most often resulting from misidentification, miscommunication, or other factors, which have contributed to a shooter's confusion. However, these mistakes often result in the loss of lives. Some current systems employ Situational Awareness to reduce uncertainty and confusion. Yet, there has been only a minimal reduction in the frequency of fratricide using these systems. As described above, Situational Awareness alone does not provide a complete picture of a given situation. Accordingly, despite the development in the area of notification systems, conventional solutions still fail to provide a complete view of a given situation.
These systems are further limited when extended beyond a single military force or organizational entity to a plurality of interacting entities. Information exchange between a plurality of interacting entities can be achieved by employing all-to all-rapid communication capability to facilitate total information exchange. However, misuse of all-to-all communication leads to unnecessary and time-consuming “noise” and causes information overload. In these cases, there is a need for information exchange to be intent driven by design so as to eliminate information overload by providing relevant and timely information. Often times, when there are a plurality of interactive entities, heterogeneous information systems are implemented each with distinct information exchange, processing, and integration requirements. In these cases, there is a need for intent driven information exchange with additional functionality for dynamic information sharing based on the information exchange requirements of each interactive entity and using data formats and structures specific for the domain.